Today I was judged based on the color of my skin.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Playing on Sympathies
President Obama's announcement earlier this week that he supported legalizing gay marriage has caused quite a stir, as I'm sure his campaign intended it to. Though he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" he is still coming our in support of gay marriage. Overall his speech is full of mixed messages.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Active Discrimination on the Part of the FDA
Today's topic has me livid.
This morning I went to a local Red Cross blood drive with the intent of making a donation. For personal medical reasons it has been several years since I have given blood and in the past I must have glossed over or not registered the blatant discrimination included therein.
The particular section in question was reasons you cannot/should not give blood, particularly in regards to HIV and AIDS. One of the bullet points was "If you are a man who has had sexual contact, even once, with another man since 1977".
I had to read the line and the header several times, not sure if I was seeing what I was actually seeing. Finally, I got up from my chair, took the packet to the lady at the reception table, and told her that I would be walking out and not donating today under protest for their discriminatory practices. I explained my reason to the ladies at the desk as well as a technician who came out to talk to me about it. My reasons are thus:
That verbiage effectively disqualifies every gay man, whether or not they have HIV or are having unsafe sex. It also appears to me to promote a link between HIV and being gay which has been proven false many times over. Yes, HIV began its spread in the gay community, but it can also be transmitted through needles and between heterosexual couples. The so called "gay disease" is a myth that no one in their right mind has believed since the 90s and there is a large percentage of the gay community who practice safe sex and/or have a limited number of partners. I cannot support policies that deny 8% of the male population the right to give blood.
I took contact info for the Red Cross with me and was told that their policies are only following FDA guidelines.
When I got home I called the Red Cross. The man on the line reiterated that they are only following FDA guidelines but that they are trying to get those guidelines changed from a blanket exclusion to a waiting period. I.E. after a certain period of time without male to male sexual contact a person could start giving blood again. But I had to point out to him that this was still discriminatory because it would require a gay couple in a long term, monogamous relationship to abstain from sex (presumably for months if not years) just for the privilege of giving blood. I made sure he logged my formal complaint and then got the contact info for the FDA to pursue the matter further.
I am making the personal choice to protest and not give blood again until this statute is changed. I consider this a great personal sacrifice as well as a weighty choice because giving blood can be a life saving matter, but if we do not stand up for change this discrimination will only continue. It is 2012 and we live in a nation where we know that homosexuality is not contagious. It is time we stop allowing our government to continue policies that say otherwise.
If you would like to make your own stand make some calls and get the word out:
American Red Cross:
866-236-3276
FDA:
Email them through "Contact Us" page on www.fda.gov
888-463-6332
This morning I went to a local Red Cross blood drive with the intent of making a donation. For personal medical reasons it has been several years since I have given blood and in the past I must have glossed over or not registered the blatant discrimination included therein.
The particular section in question was reasons you cannot/should not give blood, particularly in regards to HIV and AIDS. One of the bullet points was "If you are a man who has had sexual contact, even once, with another man since 1977".
I had to read the line and the header several times, not sure if I was seeing what I was actually seeing. Finally, I got up from my chair, took the packet to the lady at the reception table, and told her that I would be walking out and not donating today under protest for their discriminatory practices. I explained my reason to the ladies at the desk as well as a technician who came out to talk to me about it. My reasons are thus:
That verbiage effectively disqualifies every gay man, whether or not they have HIV or are having unsafe sex. It also appears to me to promote a link between HIV and being gay which has been proven false many times over. Yes, HIV began its spread in the gay community, but it can also be transmitted through needles and between heterosexual couples. The so called "gay disease" is a myth that no one in their right mind has believed since the 90s and there is a large percentage of the gay community who practice safe sex and/or have a limited number of partners. I cannot support policies that deny 8% of the male population the right to give blood.
I took contact info for the Red Cross with me and was told that their policies are only following FDA guidelines.
When I got home I called the Red Cross. The man on the line reiterated that they are only following FDA guidelines but that they are trying to get those guidelines changed from a blanket exclusion to a waiting period. I.E. after a certain period of time without male to male sexual contact a person could start giving blood again. But I had to point out to him that this was still discriminatory because it would require a gay couple in a long term, monogamous relationship to abstain from sex (presumably for months if not years) just for the privilege of giving blood. I made sure he logged my formal complaint and then got the contact info for the FDA to pursue the matter further.
I am making the personal choice to protest and not give blood again until this statute is changed. I consider this a great personal sacrifice as well as a weighty choice because giving blood can be a life saving matter, but if we do not stand up for change this discrimination will only continue. It is 2012 and we live in a nation where we know that homosexuality is not contagious. It is time we stop allowing our government to continue policies that say otherwise.
If you would like to make your own stand make some calls and get the word out:
American Red Cross:
866-236-3276
FDA:
Email them through "Contact Us" page on www.fda.gov
888-463-6332
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)